寫在前面的話：因為在學校演講中選了基因科技的主題，這段時間閱讀了一些關於基因的書，人類對自然對生命的畏懼面對科技的爆發正在漸漸消失。人類迫不及待地想搶走上帝手中的那把手術刀。但是這一切好比一個孩子穿上了白大褂走進了手術室，他帶來的會是什麼結果？
To take over as God
——A war between technology and humanity for justice
The introduction：
A news story at the end of 2018 sparked national debate
HeJiankui, a researcher at southern university of science and technology, edited the genes of human embryos. The two genetically edited babies were born in the hospital.
(1)wide scope of discussion—scientists,intellectuals, investors, rights groups, and the general public allparticipated in this heated discussion
(2)caused outrage—The hospital and school where HeJiankui worked issued statements clarifying that they had nothing to do with the incident.State agencies have also voiced their willingness to investigate and take serious action. Hundreds of scientists have condemned HeJiankui.
Why did this cause such conflict?
Part I What is gene editing?
Genes control human traits. The physical differences between people are largely influenced by genes, from our personal habits to our health and disease. By modifying genes,the corresponding human traits can be changed.
1. Pinpoint the areas you need to edit
2. Modify the targeted area accordingly
Part II Three controversial issues in gene editing
1. technology
Gene editing is currently inaccurate
Despite advances in technology, genes cannot be edited with 100 percent accuracy.
If gene editing goes off target, meaning that the region that should have been edited is not edited, or is misedited, or even worse, the wrong region is edited, it can have serious consequences.
A new technology should be perfected in thelaboratory and only put into practice when it really matures, to make it accountable to everyone, just like clinical trials of a drug. If the technology is pushed directly into application when it is not mature, it is likely to cause serious consequences.
2. demand
Who really needs gene editing?
Gene editing can be used as a cure for diseases, but the question is, how to draw the line of when gene editing is needed? How severe does the disease need to be to require gene editing?
1.For severe congenital diseases, should gene editing be performed?
2.Is gene editing necessary for common human traits, such as appearance and height?
3.Should we use gene editing technology to further transform and optimize human beings, such as making people's intelligence and physical ability more excellent?
3. Ethical dilemma
Part III The ethical dilemma brought by gene editing technology to human beings
1. Is the emergence of"biochemists" a good or bad thing for sports?
Import: why must athletes be banned from taking performance-enhancing drugs?
（1） violation of the principle of fair play→Allow all athletes to take medication?
（2） taking stimulants will harm the health of athletes→The rationale for banning doping
Assumption: the new technology meets the following conditions
1.Rapidly improve the performance of the athletes
2.There is no harm to the health of the athletes
3.It can even improve the physique of athletes→Shouldit be allowed? Such as injection of erythropoietin→Increase the concentration of red blood cells→Significantly improves muscle endurance
If allowed→Direct genetic modification of athletes→The athletes themselves produced more erythropoietin
Think again: if there are no restrictions on the use of technology→'biotrophist' to emerge in future（Genetically modified + Computer chipimplantation）Explosive power and endurance, flawless technical actions
The emergence of"biotrophist" shows the abuse of human power→Genetic modification→Lose the awe nature and the fear of life→Trying to take over as God
The ultimate goal of sports competition: to appreciate and admire the talents endowed by nature
The emergence of biochemical athletes→Sport degenerates into a technological arm srace
2. What are the historical consequences of mankind's pursuit of "perfect offspring"?
Introduction: the"eugenics" movement
Hitler's eugenics became genocide and the holocaust
Gene editing is liberal eugenics→A new humanitarian disaster?
3. What is the ultimate damage to parents who use genetic technology to customize the perfect child?
（1）If parents preimplant certain talents through gene editing, such as musical or athletic talent, the child can only develop in a given path. This means that the absolute tyranny of parents over their children fundamentally deprives them of their rights to freedom.
（2）If parents predispose their children’s genes to a general enhancement, instead of a specific professional gift, such as an improved memory, better cognitive skills, or more agreeable facial features. These talents do not affect the child's planning,but positively help the child's life, so they do not deprive the child of autonomy.
（3）Even if parents do not prejudge their children’s genes, shouldn’t children have the right to choose their own genes?→The genes of naturally conceived children are determined by a"genetic lottery", the result of random selection by nature.→At the genetic level, people who are not "free" in the first place are certainly not deprived of their freedom by their children.
Parents love their children in two ways→ (1) acceptance of love; (2) transformed love
acceptance of love→To see a child as a gift from heaven, and to accept wholeheartedly the nature of his birth, including all his faults, is a sign of humility and reverence for life.
transformed love→Through education to promote the development of the child, so that he can reach a better state. This is a responsibility of parents cannot shirk.
acceptance of love＞transformed love→Pamper and spoil
Accepted love =transformed love→balance
acceptance of love＜transformed love→Take a stance of conquest and attempt to control children’s lives（Children are the product of their own volitions, thus parents are likely to be more critical and demanding about their future performance. This is clearly not unconditional love, but the most fatal blow to the parent-child relationship.）
The essence of using high-pressure education to shape and using genetic technology to transform children is the same. Since it's wrong to use traditional high-pressure education to shape children, is it right to genetically engineer them?
In "A Brief History of the Future", it was suggested that the future would see the emergence of "useless classes", people with no economic value and no political rights. Because they can't do anything better than "artificial intelligence."
Gene editing poses the same problem. Hawking predicts in his book 「Concise Answers to Big Questions」This century, humans will be able to master the technology to improve intelligence and health, and the rich will become super-human. And as soon as humans begin this self-designed competition, a new race will begin, and those who have not been improved will become 「useless classes」.
At the end：
Gene editing technology is a scalpel in the hand of god. Human beings should be in awe of nature and life.Don't let the new technology lead us into a world haunted by demons.
上帝的手術刀
——科技與人性的正義之戰
導言
2018年底的一則新聞引發了全民討論
南方科技大學的研究人員賀建奎對人類胚胎的基因進行了編輯，並且這兩名接受基因編輯的嬰兒已經在醫院出生了。
（1） 討論範圍廣——科學家、知識分子、投資人、權利機構、普通大眾都參與了這場激烈的討論
（2） 引發了眾怒——賀建奎所在的醫院和學校都發表聲明澄清與此事無關；國家相關機構也發聲表示要調查並嚴肅處理；數百位科學家聯名譴責賀建奎
正文：為什麼這個事情引發了如此大的震動？
第一部分 基因編輯是什麼？
基因控制著人體的性狀，人和人之間生理上的差異，主要也是受基因的影響，小到我們的個人習性，大到我們的健康和疾病。利用基因編輯技術，通過修改基因，可以改變相應的人體性狀。
1. 精準地找到需要編輯的區域
2. 對目的區域進行相應修改
第二部分 基因編輯科技中涉及的三大爭議問題
1. 技術
基因編輯目前並不精準。
儘管技術在不斷進步，但是無法做到百分之百精準地對基因進行編輯。
如果基因編輯發生了脫靶，也就是本來該編輯的區域沒有編輯到，或者發生了錯誤編輯，甚至編輯到了其他區域，就有可能產生嚴重的後果。
一項新技術應該在實驗室中不斷完善，等真正成熟了，才推向應用，這是對所有人負責，就像藥物的臨床試驗一樣。如果在技術並不成熟的時候直接推向應用，極有可能造成嚴重的後果。
2. 需求
到底誰才需要基因編輯？
基因編輯是可以治病的，但是問題是，到底什麼樣的疾病或者說什麼程度的疾病才需要基因編輯？
（1） 嚴重的先天性疾病，是否可以基因編輯？
（2） 人的普通性狀，如長相、身高等方面，是否需要進行基因編輯？
（3） 該不該用基因編輯技術進一步改造人類，優化人類，比如讓人的智力、體能變得更加優秀？
3. 倫理困境
第三部分 基因編輯技術給人類帶來的倫理困境
1.「生化運動員」的出現，對體育比賽來說是好事還是壞事？
導入：為什麼必須禁止運動員服用興奮劑？
（1） 違反了公平競賽的原則→允許所有運動員都服藥？
（2） 服用興奮劑會損害運動員的健康→禁止服用興奮劑的根本理由
設想：新的技術手段符合以下條件（1）迅速提升運動員的成績（2）對運動員的健康沒有損害（3）甚至增強運動員的體質→該不該被允許使用？比如注射紅血球生成素→增加紅血球濃度→顯著提升肌肉耐力
如果被允許→直接對運動員進行基因改造→運動員自身自行生產出更多的紅血球生成素
再設想：如果對技術的使用完全沒有限制→未來出現新物種「生化運動員」（基因改良+計算機晶片植入）爆發力和耐力、技術動作完美無瑕
「生化運動員」的出現顯現出人類對自身力量的濫用→無限度改造自然→改造基因→失去對自然的敬畏對生命的敬畏→試圖奪過上帝的手術刀
體育比賽的終極目的：欣賞和讚嘆自然賦予人類的才能和天賦
生化運動員的出現→體育比賽淪為技術軍備競賽
2.人類對「完美後代」的追求，曾在歷史上導致了怎樣的後果？
導入：「優生學」運動
希特勒的優生絕育法演變成種族滅絕和大屠殺
基因編輯技術是自由主義優生學→新的人道主義災難？
3.父母用基因技術來定製完美孩子的做法，最終損害的是什麼？
（1）如果父母通過基因編輯預先植入的是某些天賦，比如音樂才能或者體育才能，那麼孩子只能按照既定的路徑來發展。這意味著父母對孩子的絕對專制，是從根本上剝奪了孩子的自由權利。
（2）如果父母對孩子預設的基因，不是某種特定的職業天賦，而是一些通用的天賦，比如說增強記憶力、認知能力，或者是五官更出色。這些天賦不會影響孩子的人生規劃，而是對孩子的人生規劃有積極的幫助，所以並沒有剝奪孩子的自主權。
（3）就算父母不預設孩子的基因，難道孩子就有權自行選擇基因嗎？→自然孕育的孩子的基因，是由「基因彩票」決定的，是大自然隨機選擇的結果。→就基因層面來說，本來就沒有「自由」的人，當然也談不上孩子被剝奪了自由。
父母對孩子的愛包括兩個方面→（1）接受的愛；（2）轉化的愛
接受的愛→把孩子看成是上天恩賜的禮物，全心全意地接受孩子與生俱來的本質，包括他的所有不足，這體現了對生命的謙卑和敬畏。
轉化的愛→通過教育促進孩子的發展，使他達到一個更好的狀態，這是為人父母不可推卸的責任。
接受的愛＞轉化的愛＞→縱容和溺愛
接受的愛=轉換的愛
接受的愛＜轉換的愛→對生命採取徵服和控制的立場（孩子是個人意志的產物，從而有可能對孩子的未來表現更為挑剔和嚴苛，這顯然不是無條件的愛，而是對親子關係最致命的打擊。
用高壓教育來形塑孩子的父母和用基因技術改造孩子的父母，兩者沒有實質上的區別。既然用傳統的高壓教育來形塑孩子是錯誤的，那麼用基因改造孩子的做法就是對的了麼？
在《未來簡史》這本書裡，曾經提出過未來會出現「無用階級」，這些人沒有經濟價值也沒有政治權利。因為他們做什麼都比不過「人工智慧」。
基因編輯技術也帶來同樣的問題。霍金在他的書《對大問題的簡明回答》預測說「本世紀，人類就能夠掌握提高智商、改善體質的技術，富人就可以變成超級人類。而人類一旦開始了這種自我設計的競爭，就會開始新的人種競賽，那些沒被改良過的人就會成為無用階級
結尾：
基因編輯技術是上帝手中的手術刀，人類應該對自然對生命保持敬畏之心，別讓新技術把我們帶入一個魔鬼出沒的世界。